Proof For All Time Of Unhinged Hypocrisy And Bias From The Pseudo-Journalist Class And The Rank-And-File Democrat

So this morning I’m looking through the crappy bird-cage-liner that passes itself off as the newspaper of record on the West Coast, just as I’ve been looking through the same bird-cage-liner every day since Trump announced his candidacy, let alone since he was elected. And it’s just rabidly unhinged bias day after day after day.

Meanwhile, the same Democrat establishment and the same voters who literally swarmed Obama with fanatic worship when he was elected – who hysterically told anyone who didn’t take the Mark of the Obama that you were a racist, a hater, a traitor, fill in your own blank – rose up in a spirit of rabid, violent hatred against the President of the United States even before he took office.

Does democracy require journalists and educators to strive for political balance? I’m hardly alone in thinking the answer is “yes.” But it also requires them to present the facts as they understand them — and when it is not possible to be factual and balanced at the same time, democratic institutions risk collapse.

Consider the problem abstractly. Democracy X is dominated by two parties, Y and Z. Party Y is committed to the truth of propositions A, B and C, while Party Z is committed to the falsity of A, B and C. Slowly the evidence mounts: A, B and C look very likely to be false. Observers in the media and experts in the education system begin to see this, but the evidence isn’t quite plain enough for non-experts, especially if those non-experts are aligned with Party Y and already committed to A, B and C.

Both psychological research and commonsense observation of the recent political situation (I think you’ll agree with this, whatever side you’re on) demonstrate the great human capacity to rationalize and justify what you want to believe. The evidence against A can be very substantial — compelling, even, from a neutral point of view — without convincing people who are emotionally invested in the truth of A.

The journalists and educators who live in X now face a dilemma. They can present both sides in a balanced way, or they can call the facts as they see them. Either choice threatens the basic institutions of democracy.

If they present balanced cases for and against A, B and C, they give equal time to the false and the true. They create the misleading impression that the matter is still in doubt, that opinion is divided, that it’s equally reasonable to believe either side. They thereby undermine and discredit their own assessment that A, B and C are very likely to be false. This is dangerous, since democracy depends on a well-educated, informed voting public, aware of the relevant facts.

In the long term, journalists and educators will likely turn against balance, because they care intensely about the facts in question and don’t wish to pretend that the evidence is unclear. They understand that they cannot routinely promote false equivalencies while retaining their integrity.

Schwittzoebel blathers on a little longer and then finally concludes,

This is all general and oversimplified. But it’s clear in the abstract and in the real world that knowledgeable people can be forced by the evidence to disproportionately favor one political party over another, creating a vicious cycle of bias and partisan alignment.

We might be entering this cycle in the United States. To fight against it, we must allow journalists, educators and researchers to speak freely. Political leaders and their supporters must not rush to the conclusion that experts who disagree with them — even systematically — are their enemies.

The first thing you need to understand is that, in the “abstract” presentation that he provides, he this “academic” firmly sides with the Democratic Party. The Republican Party is “abstractly” Party Y – you know, the one that has every single one of its facts wrong because it’s dominated by stupid, ignorant, emotional people – whereas his Party Z is the Enlightened Party that knows all and is struggling to accommodate all of these stupid, vacuous, ignorant, clueless unwashed masses.

In all, people identified in federal campaign finance filings as journalists, reporters, news editors or television news anchors — as well as other donors known to be working in journalism — have combined to give more than $396,000 to the presidential campaigns of Clinton and Trump, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis.

Nearly all of that money — more than 96 percent — has benefited Clinton: About 430 people who work in journalism have, through August, combined to give about $382,000 to the Democratic nominee, the Center for Public Integrity’s analysis indicates.

What about the academics? Yeah, he fails to mention the same rabid bias in that group, also.

Almost 100 percent of the 2016 presidential political donations made by top liberal arts professors went to Democratic candidates, with only one professor giving to a Republican candidate.

Forty-seven professors at the top 50 liberal arts colleges in the country, as ranked by U.S. News & World Report, have given to presidential campaigns, according to donations recorded in the third quarter by the Federal Election Commission and aggregated by Campus Reform, a conservative watchdog of higher education.

Of those 47 professors, Hamilton College History Professor Robert Paquette was the only one to give to a Republican — donating $150 to Carly Fiorina’s campaign.

The 46 other professors gave $20,875 to Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton and $8,417 to Vermont Sen. Bernard Sanders, the report said.

“I do believe these numbers give an accurate representation of the political leanings of faculty on most college campuses, especially allegedly elite liberal arts colleges like Hamilton College,” Mr. Paquette told Campus Reform. Mr. Paquette told the organization he was the “only out-of-closet conservative in a faculty of 200.”

The truly frightening thing about Schwitzgebel’s “analysis” is that, for Schwitzgebel, this rabidly lopsided bias probably isn’t even a problem. After all, he is telling us that journalists and academics HAVE to ultimately choose sides and “present facts as they understand them.” They have to be able “to speak freely.”

And so they have a RIGHT and even a DUTY to be in Nazi goose-stepping fascist synchronized march toward one political ideology.

And if you are NOT in these elite classes of the Übermensch, you have the right to shut up and mindlessly follow. Because, that is all they believe you are capable of doing.

In order for Schwitzgebel to have his utopian “democracy” where we have “a well-educated, informed voting public, aware of the relevant facts,” we have only tow alternatives: the first is to put everyone who supports Party Y in a reeducation camp until they understand that the only acceptable reality is to accept the one presented by the journalists and the academics; and the second is to surgically “correct” the members of Party Y with a full frontal lobotomy and fit them with a drool-collecting prosthetic so that they can be led to the way, the truth and the life according to “the facts” as journalists and academics understand them.

two things make a philosopher great: quality of argument and creative vigor

I mean, gee whiz, Eric, “quality of argument”? HOW ABOUT ANY DAMN ARGUMENT AT ALL??? “Creative vigor”? I mean, what the hell, when nearly one-hundred percent of your ilk are all marching in lock-step for one side. I mean, oh yeah, there’s just ALL KINDS of “creativity” going on in your ivy tower and your faculty lounge, isn’t there???

Eric, you are true to your liberal-progressive kind: you are a devout, abject moral hypocrite of the very lowest order.

Allow me to post every single page of the Los Angles Times main section to prove a point:

There they are: a photograph of every single page of the main section of the Los Angles times for Monday, January 30, 2017

Let me go through every single headline and subtitle of each article in the main page section of the newspaper of record for the West Coast:

How Trump created chaos at the airports: Not only was his order on refugees unfair and inhumane, but they way it was carried out was a disaster.

Leader of the free world [on Angela Merkel, celebrating her leftist immigration policies in contrast to Trump’s]

A cruel, illegal executive order

It’s been this way ever since EVER, for the record.

There is not ONE example of objective, impartial journalism in the entire newspaper. Rather, it is blatantly obvious that the policy of the Los Angeles Times is of echoing and amplifying ALL the criticisms from the unhinged left, while steadfastly refusing to so much as allow for mention ANYTHING that Trump may have done that could even conceivably be good.

Every single article is negative and unrelentingly critical. For example, the “Police wary of new duty article” subtitled, “Trump’s order to use local units to enforce immigration laws elicits resistance by some L.A. officers” and then titled as it continues “New duties would ‘create a wedge'”: how likely is it that there are not “some L.A. officers” who are FOR this executive order and welcome it as good policy??? But the “some officers” who take the leftist side are the ONLY ones who get to count. And to the extent that there is any nuance in the article itself, you don’t see anything but unrelenting anger and criticism in the headlines and subtitles that are what most people glance at as they pick up this biased piece of leftist propaganda.

And again, in the “BONDS MADE CLOSER” story: do you think it’s possible that someone with bad intentions might have been blocked? But no, it’s going to be framed as sobbing mothers and hysterical children. And that’s all that matters. Which amounts to an entirely emotionalism-laded framing of this policy from a biased, slanted perspective while our philosophy professor Eric Schwitzgebe lambasts US as the “emotional” ones.

The media and academia pull this tactic all the damn time: let’s search and search and search until we can find some sympathetic victim that suits our narrative, and then follow the Saul Alinsky strategy: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” And it is ALWAYS emotional and it is ALWAYS leftist. But it’s marvelous when they do what they demonize us for doing. Because to be a liberal progressive is to be an abject moral hypocrite incapable of shame or virtue or integrity or decency or honesty.

The “Trump’s powerful political duo” article where Trump advisors want to “reshape the country” forces me to remember when Obama said he was only days away from “fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” But THAT was wonderful and greeted with cheers and adoration whereas what Trump is doing is utterly evil because somebody who isn’t a beloved liberal ideologue now wants to “reshape the country.”

No, or to put it more accurately, HELL no: rather, to put it in Eric’s language, “they present the facts as they understand them.” Or at least “the facts” that they CHOOSE in their BIAS to present.

“Thousands of protesters” are framed as HEROES. Remember when the Tea Party was demonstrating? Not ONE SINGLE arrest was EVER made of a tea party supporter – and in fact the ONLY arrests were of unhinged liberal progressives whose fascist souls were filled with hate and rage at the thought that free people had the freedom to demonstrate. But the mainstream media demonized us like we were burning and looting and raping and rioting. But then we had first the vile protests of the Occupy Movement where we had acts of terrorism, acts of rape, acts of mass vandalism; then we had Black Lives Matter chanting “Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon” and “What do we want?” Dead cops!” When do we want it?” “NOW!” which corresponded to an orgy of execution-style slayings of police officers. And now we’ve got Democrats charged with RIOTING the day Donald Trump was inaugurated. And the way the mainstream media depicts it it’s all so, so wonderful.

Such as when Democrats were using Nazi-style Brownshirt tactics to physically beat and terrorize Donald Trump supporters for the crime of participating in the 1st Amendment of our Constitution (see my articles documenting this here and here and here).

And you’re actually worried that the mainstream media that ignored the rise of the Nazi Party from within the Democrat Party isn’t being given enough respect, Eric???

Damn near very single story the mainstream media does emerges from the Saul Alinsky tactic: Pick a target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. DAMN NEAR EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Of course, you have to realize that at NO TIME EVER in the last eight years did ANY Secret Service agent EVER ONCE obstruct ANY reporter’s view of the MLK bust: or else we can safely assume that these unbiased purveyors of fact and truth would have immediately reported that Barack Obama had ordered the MLK bust removed.

Amazingly, Zeke Miller STILL has a job in spite of the fact that he just proved that Time Magazine is a nest of poisonous, fanged, venomous vipers who are NOTHING but biased propagandists trying to slander and pervert the truth to suit their ideology and political narrative to harm and undermine Donald Trump and every single voter who elected him president.

You go back and look over the disgrace that journalists made of themselves as Donald Trump kept proving that all the crap they were “reporting” was “FAKE NEWS” from a biased perspective: Donald Trump couldn’t win the primary because he was too polarizing and too divisive; Donald Trump could never defeat Hillary Clinton because he was too polarizing and too divisive; Donald Trump was out of contention in all the swing states because he was too polarizing and too divisive. And all our biased polls prove our foreordained biased conclusion justifying our biased narrative.

THIS is what it means to be a “journalist” today. THIS is what it means to be an “academic” today. And if you’re not one of these propagandists, good luck in finding a damn job with them or keeping a job if you already managed to sneak in.

If you are a “journalist” or an “academic” today, YOU ARE THE LIVING EMBODIMENT OF DISHONESTY AND DISGRACE.

On the academic side, what we see is outright psycho-terror for professors whose expertise and scientific analysis tell them that evolution as a “fact” is a load of crap; we see an avalanche in academia of intolerable denials of tenure, denials of promotion, denials of contract renewals, denials of earned degrees, denials of admission into graduate programs”, and other rabid discrimination against a substantial minority of credentialed scientists that disagrees with the prevailing dogmatism of the myth of evolution.

This is “science” to an evolutionist. Consider the words from Nobel Laureate Dr. George Wald who concedes a great deal in this quote: “One only has to concede the magnitude of the task to concede the possibility of the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.” Wald talks about billions of years and then concludes, “Given so much time, the ‘impossible’ becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain.”

You have discredited yourselves. Nobody ought to listen to you who wants the truth or even anything vaguely resembling the truth. Your “facts” “as you understand them” are carefully selected lies that pimp a false narrative. You’ve done it over and over and over again.

WHERE was your outrage, Mr. Schwittzoebel, when Obama was imposing every manner of outrageous, polarizing executive orders and policies and spitting in the eyes of increasingly outraged and alienated Americans???

I wrote this prediction back in 2012:

Obama’s strategy is to set aside and flatly ignore the law for his own political benefit. Every American who is not deeply troubled by that – troubled enough to not vote for this fascist – is UN-American.

What Obama has done is provide an example of out-and-out lawlessness on the part of the president of the United States. And when we get a hard-core right wing president the way Obama has been a hard-core left wing president, Obama and the Democrat Party and all of those who voted for Obama and the Democrat Party will be entirely to blame for that president and his extremist actions. You mark my words. Because what goes around comes around, and if a Democrat can set aside the law the way Obama has now repeatedly done, well, guess who’s going to be stomping on your necks under your own president’s prior justification??? Conservatives are rising up in a spirit of righteous outrage. You have repeatedly slapped us in the face through your messiah Obama, and the time is coming when we’re going to punch you hard in the nose and then keep on punching. And when that day comes, liberals, look to yourselves for blame. — My words on June 18, 2012

If you want to get even with the people most responsible for the rise of Donald Trump, then hunt every Democrat who voted for Barack Obama down with dogs and burn them alive. Because Donald Trump was the result of eight years of FASCISM.

So we get to Trump’s entirely LAWFUL order to limit immigrants and refugees from seven countries that were actually even on Obama’s list as dangerous sponsors of terrorism. For eight years, Obama gave us lawless executive orders that he himself had previously labeled as the acts of a king, an emperor, arguing that they were unconstitutional and anti-democratic before then issuing them anyway. And Democrats smiled and laughed at the abandonment of our Constitution and the tossing out of our laws.

DON’T complain, Democrat: YOU INVITED THIS. YOU DEMANDED THIS. YOU GOT WHAT YOU GAVE US.

Further, these seven countries are notorious abusers of human rights against Christian minorities, against women, against homosexuals. But that’s perfectly okay, isn’t it???

Obama has been nothing short of a total disaster for the Democratic Party. He lost the White House. He lost the House. He lost the Senate. He lost a giant number of governorships. He lost a giant number of state houses. He’s a disgrace. And yet he is the liberal progressives’ god and the only god with whom they will have to do.

If Democrats had ANY virtue or integrity whatsoever, they would say, “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, Trump won.” They would say, “We Democrats can go for a ride with Donald Trump, but we gotta sit in back.”

The fact that you won’t abide by the rules of your own game that you created is the biggest crisis facing America today.

3 Responses to “Proof For All Time Of Unhinged Hypocrisy And Bias From The Pseudo-Journalist Class And The Rank-And-File Democrat”

“Do you want to see “emotional”??? How about Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer weeping and sobbing at just what a mean, bad, mean old man Donald Trump is???”

I seen Trump on TV talking about Schumer and he was referring to his fake tears. I was literally laughing out loud, which is something that I haven’t done too often in the past 8 years.

Like you, I too have been observing the MSM since the inauguration. Although definitely not surprised, I am still amazed at how far they go to lie and distort facts for their leftist agenda. It is easy for people like you and me to see through it, but there are so many that fall for the propaganda. Someone recently asked me how I can tell the bull crap from the truth. I said that everything that comes out of the MSM – and I rattled off several of the offenders – is agenda driven and is some form of propaganda involving a lie or a distortion of the facts or both. When looking at it with that critical mindset and knowing who the people are that are trafficking it, it becomes real easy to discern. Although sickening, it is interesting to expose the lies, methods and motives of these psychotics.

It is real refreshing as well as entertaining to see the Trump administration standing up to the leftist media. I am sure they are not used to this.

The one thing I like about Trump is that he doesn’t seem to give a flying damn what these butthurt fascists that make up the liberal-progressive-owned Democrat Party and the media that is their propaganda arm think or do.

There was a time when people were just morally superior to people of today. And so, for example, when the Germans introduced chemical gas warfare, the great generation that won WWI didn’t surrender; they FOUGHT BACK USING THE SAME TACTICS. And when Hitler in WWII advanced “total warfare” and began carpet bombing London, the great generation that won WWII didn’t surrender; they FOUGHT BACK USING THE SAME TACTICS. And we FIREBOMBED Dresden and we FIREBOMBED Tokyo and we defeated a wicked enemy using their own damn tactics. Even Blitzkrieg was turned against Hitler as Patton used it to kick total Nazi ass.

There is a REASON we haven’t won a war since. We don’t even have the damn courage to DECLARE we are actually at war today.

And the Republican Party need to grow themselves a set and rank and file Republicans need to match their demonic hate with a spirit of righteous anger and we need to stomp them using the same tactics that they use. We DON’T filibuster Democrat Supreme Court appointees because we don’t think it’s right. We tolerate a system that allows us – AT BEST – to have a judge who will actually follow the Constitution. When our Satanic opponents get to pick judges who will impose whatever leftist political approach they want and claim that because they’re “judges,” it’s the “law.” If we started matching Obama filibustering Alito as a Senator every damn time, and just shutting down the country the way Democrats do; if we appointed hard-core right wing judges who would read right wing politics into the Constitution the way the left wing appointees always do, it would quickly be a very different and far more fair world.

Instead, we refuse to boycott when leftwing businesses pull leftist politics out of their butts. And so good businesses and groups are boycotted into submission while we refuse to fight back fair and square.